Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 6957086" data-attributes="member: 6799660">No it isn't. The common use of rolling a die, is rolling a die with most other conditionals or situationals left undefined.One more time, and here we are back at the crux at where I think there is contention. Nothing indicates anything one way or the other*. In the absence of defining information, your assumptions are as valid as, but no more supported, than any others. It is figuratively up in the air. *We'll get to combat inspiration later If there was a positive benefit to doing so, one probably would. In games such as poker, one definitely hides one's cards. Perhaps more directly, in Monopoly, one rarely reveals how much money they have if possible, as it influences how one's opponent plays. If you look objectively at the rules, there is plenty of reason not to reveal a dice roll. First reason that comes to mind: so that the DM does not have to reveal a monster's AC or to-hit, and let the Players suss it out with the information that they know. As to many people liking the idea, I'm not sure that that is the case. I'm pretty sure most players play roll in the open, and DMs are somewhere in the 50% vicinity on where they fall. You simply called out ThePolarBear's position as a house rule, and we are disagreeing with that assertion.I have to mea culpa. I thought I had, and clearly didn't. I see that I was addressing bardic inspiration (since I'm working off of 5e srd), not combat inspiration. I'll have to go check that out when I get in front of the books. Others have not what? What were others tasked with doing?As to combat inspiration. It is certainly indicative of open rolls. Given how often the gamebook talks with competing voices, I'm going to hold my opinion, though. I'm going to see if anyone else has found this little gem, and any other passages which might have contradictory implications. EDIT:Ah, I knew something would come up quickly to muddy the water. Regardless, even if there is wording which supports your position (and I'm sure we'll all go round and round on what that means), that doesn't change what the rest of us see as a serious failure in facultative reasoning. If your position is so unchallengeable, what's all the references to monopoly and yahtzee? Why say " if looked at objectively there isn't a reason to do it by the rules" (which directly contradicts "And there isn't anything wrong with keeping rolls secret except that it very  much handicaps abilities that revolve around modifying AC or attack rolls" since that highlights an objective difference)? Do you not recognize that literally none of these are coherent arguments towards your position?Ignoring Combat Inspiration and DMG p. 235, do you understand the argument that others are making? That in the absence of the ruleset addressing something, it doesn't default to the way that seems most obvious to you, but instead that all possible options are equally supported? Are we even successfully communicating this position?</blockquote>

Verification